2020 US Presidential Election

Indeed it's a trap!

RNC day 1 headliner. Best of the best the Party has to offer (aside from Trump, of course). Uncut and unfiltered, no bias, no commentary.

Anyone here want to square up and acknowledge ownership of literally any part of that? Token forum snowflake libtard here, ready and eager to get owned point-by-point. Pick your favorite 60 seconds as a starter, or more if you like. Show me the error of my ways. I'm ready to see the light.

For Jason........

[h=1]AOC fact checks Kimberly Guilfoyle's immigrant status[/h]https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...imberly-guilfoyles-immigrant-status/24599388/

Jack@European_Parts said:

For Jason........

[h=1]AOC fact checks Kimberly Guilfoyle's immigrant status[/h]https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...imberly-guilfoyles-immigrant-status/24599388/

Click to expand...

I mean yeah, that's in the top 5. But don't spoil the rest for them just yet. I want to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Forever in trouble.........

jyoung8607 said:

Anyone here want to square up and acknowledge ownership of literally any part of that?

Click to expand...

Compared to what the Democrats are offering? I'll take it.

-Uwe-

Compared to what the Democrats are offering? I'll take it.

-Uwe-

Click to expand...

My Dad made the family read these fine novels.....do you think you will need them?

RNC day 2, more quality speakers from mainstream heartland America!

I'm sure everyone who doesn't depend on Fox News has seen this by now:

“Statistically, I look at our prison population and I see that there is a disproportionately high number of African-American males in our prison population for crimes, particularly for violent crimes. So statistically, when a police officer sees a brown man like my Jude walking down the road — as opposed to my white nerdy kids, my white nerdy men walking down the road — because of the statistics that he knows in his head, that these police officers know in their head, they’re going to know that statistically my brown son is more likely to commit a violent offense over my white sons.”

Click to expand...

She might want to dig into those statistics just a little deeper. But THIS... this is my favorite:



That is just precious. This is what the RNC elevates to mainstream discourse. Anyone want to own this one? Blink twice if "yes" but your wife or daughter is standing behind you.

Honorable mention: poor Mary Ann Mendoza, who got cancel-cultured off her day 2 speaking slot for retweeting the wrong QAnon thread. Support of QAnon's rofflecopter nannercakes is usually a positive thing in these particular circles, but anti-semitism jams Trump up with the evangelicals. They're one of his only still-solid demographics and they're using him for Israel. They'll absolve him of anything else with that "imperfect vessel" schtick, but not that.

jyoung8607 said:

Anyone want to own this one? Blink twice if "yes" but your wife or daughter is standing behind you.

Click to expand...

Heck, I'd take it one step further: If you don't own land, you don't get to vote. Part of the problem with universal suffrage is that people have learned that they can can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. For 50+ years now, one of the main strategies of the Democratic Party has been to promise their constituents more bread and circuses, at someone else's expense.

My wife and daughter feel even more strongly about this than I do.

Oh, and I renewed my voter registration yesterday. I haven't voted in many years, but this year, I will vote against the party of:

• Open borders
• Late-term abortion
• Rioting and looting
• Endless lock-downs
• Higher taxes

Give me more time, and I can surely come up with at least a dozen more reasons to vote against them, but I've got 450 miles to drive this afternoon, and so it will have to wait.

-Uwe-

This is one of those times where I'm gonna have say I disagree with you. The premise of "Only Land-owners should vote." How should I phrase this.... When only those who 'have' are able to vote, they will continue to vote to benefit themselves, and that's how you get crony/late-stage capitalism. Every tax-paying citizen, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or assets gets 1 vote. While it's not absolute, it makes it much more difficult for those who come from humble beginnings to actually come out and work their way up. The system implemented will inevitably be skewed further against them by those who seek to benefit from absolute control.

I know I'm not phrasing this is a very eloquent way, but that kind of policy is effectively how you end up with a clergy, and much more disparity between the classes in my honest opinion.

Mike R said:

Every tax-paying citizen, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or assets gets 1 vote.

Click to expand...

I would see that as an improvement over what we currently have, where every lifetime welfare leech still gets to vote for more free cheese.

-Uwe-

Uwe said:

I would see that as an improvement over what we currently have.

-Uwe-

Click to expand...

Let's rephrase it in a clever way.

No representation without taxation.

Mike R said:

Let's rephrase it in a clever way.
No representation without taxation.

Click to expand...

I'll make you a deal: If I voluntarily pass on the representation (I.e. choose not to vote), can I then be exempt from taxation?

-Uwe-

The United States of America is a Corporation right?

What is the ultimate DUTY of a Corporation for its shareholders?

Mike R said:

Let's rephrase it in a clever way.

No representation without taxation.

Click to expand...

Breaking that principle is what caused the "Poll Tax riots" in the UK in the late 1980's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riots

Uwe said:

Oh, and I renewed my voter registration yesterday. I haven't voted in many years, but this year, I will vote against the party of:

Click to expand...

Engagement. I like it. It's a positive step.

Uwe said:

• Open borders
• Late-term abortion
• Rioting and looting
• Endless lock-downs
• Higher taxes

Click to expand...

Strawmen I'll disassemble in independent posts later, because these next couple points are just too juicy.

Uwe said:

Heck, I'd take it one step further: If you don't own land, you don't get to vote.

Click to expand...

Let's examine the smallest and least ridiculous consequences of pitching the very heart of Constitutional democracy and consent of the governed overboard.

Me and my wife own our home right now. It's joint. Do both of us get to vote, or only one? If only one of us, which?

In 15-20 years, what if we decide to sell and rent an apartment to live near our kids and vacation a lot? What if we live the RV life and have a PO box? What if we're in a nursing home? What if we live in Manhattan or LA or another area that most folks are renting instead of buying these days? Am I still empowered to vote?

Does this scheme go by parcels owned, or square footage? Can I gain the franchise by purchasing a 1x1' parcel of land near the border from Cards of Humanity? Can Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combine forces to become the government of America?

Uwe said:

Part of the problem with universal suffrage is that people have learned that they can can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. For 50+ years now, one of the main strategies of the Democratic Party has been to promise their constituents more bread and circuses, at someone else's expense.

Click to expand...

This also needs its own post.

Uwe said:

My wife and daughter feel even more strongly about this than I do.

Click to expand...

I've not had the pleasure of meeting either in person, although I've talked with Katie briefly on the forum. She seems nice. I'll just go ahead and assume you've married and raised smart, strong, independent women who don't need any man to think, speak, or shoot for them. Except, oddly, when voting.

I beg your forgiveness and that of your family, in advance, for the absurdity of this next paragraph.

As a male landowner, I accept your position that I have the right to influence public policy and your daughter does not (on the assumption she is not yet a landowner). I further accept your position that the government can't tell me to wear a mask while I stand behind her grandparents in line at the grocery store, but that same government *can* be in the room when she visits her gynecologist. So the people I elect set policy on such things, and she doesn't even have input. So, if me and some other guys get together and have some thoughts on her reproductive and sexual activities, how should we go about instructing her on the regulations we've come up with? Should we mansplain it to her directly, or run that through you or another male custodian for Saudi Arabia-style Godly households? What sort of monitoring, compliance, and enforcement schemes would be appropriate?

Now If I'm in your place (or Katie's or Linda's) I got a little flushed reading that, and my hand would have twitched in the general direction of my concealed carry. You probably have a number of thoughts on government having no place in such things, exactly who the fuck I think I am, how dare I, etc etc. The name of that feeling is "pro-choice".

Uwe said:

Give me more time, and I can surely come up with at least a dozen more reasons to vote against them, but I've got 450 miles to drive this afternoon, and so it will have to wait.

Click to expand...

Drive safe, xkcd/386 later.

Uwe said:

Heck, I'd take it one step further: If you don't own land, you don't get to vote. Part of the problem with universal suffrage is that people have learned that they can can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

Click to expand...

Mike R said:

Every tax-paying citizen, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or assets gets 1 vote. While it's not absolute, it makes it much more difficult for those who come from humble beginnings to actually come out and work their way up. The system implemented will inevitably be skewed further against them by those who seek to benefit from absolute control.

Click to expand...

To borrow a famous quote, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.

For all the complaining conservatives like to do about "socialist" hellhole "People's Republics" run by tinpot dictators, let me remind you how many of those countries got there and stayed there: their governments granted themselves the power to choose their voters, by means legal or illegal, by finesse or by force, by sweet words of focus-group-tested "common sense" poison dripped from state television or intimidation at the polls. When you grant the ruling party power to enfranchise those in favor, and disenfranchise those in dissent, that's the end of government by the people for the people.

Thomas Jefferson said:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Click to expand...

That guy knew what he was talking about.

It's heartbreaking, to me, to see what many people choose to do with their voting powers. It doesn't occur to me for one millisecond that I have the right, be it natural or legal, to take their voice and their vote away. Do you join me in this? Or do you grant me the power to vote on *your* right to vote?

Uwe said:

Oh, and I renewed my voter registration yesterday. I haven't voted in many years, but this year, I will vote against the party of:

• Open borders
• Late-term abortion
• Rioting and looting
• Endless lock-downs
• Higher taxes

Give me more time, and I can surely come up with at least a dozen more reasons to vote against them, but I've got 450 miles to drive this afternoon, and so it will have to wait.

Click to expand...

I have my own all-day drive today, so I'm limited in how much astroturfing time I can bill the Soros organization. Just one more quickie before I go:

I think you and I generally share a set of values, ethics, and (sortakindamostly) vision of what freedom looks like. We even share an ability to consent to governance; I know that you've been able to seek agreement with neighbors to accomplish shared goals that you all benefit from. I think where we differ is how much consideration and trust and value we'll extend to names and faces we don't personally know, the folks who live on the next street over. Some have called it "empathy in/for the abstract". Some variance on that is perfectly normal and sane.

I think your news sources have taken your lack of connection to those people the next street over, those unknown to you, and thoroughly exploited it. I think they lovingly curate a Baba Yaga fountain of bullshit worldview for you to consume. Those people are evil, they're coming for your freedoms, but the Party will fight back and put them in their place, etc etc. In the first rule of cults everywhere, they begin by inoculating you against trusting any other source of information, so you keep coming back for more. And they make sure it tastes great, much like lead paint.

You may have noticed, as of late, a pattern where I've been making points and analogies using people near and dear to our respective hearts. It makes me feel like an asshole at times and as such, I try to be careful and respectful as I can when discussing such charged topics. I've also tried to be very careful in which facts I talk about, to be circumspect about doxing-level detail and ensure anything I bring up is something you've already freely discussed on the forum. I do this because I believe you and I share a great deal of common ground, and when we find that common ground, we can move on to deconstructing the mountain of bullshit you were told about me and people like me.

So if I could ask you to answer just one question today, it would be this: You know me. I plan to vote for Biden. Do you believe that I (jyoung8607) am in favor of those things you listed?